Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[NTK]

What does an afterburner have to do with it? Vectoring thrust can be done on engines without AB modules. Reverse thrusters are a different tech, but similar in principle and have been around a very long time. It is utilized in the F22 Raptor and F35 to great effect.

The F119 and F135 don't have afterburners? The thrust vectoring mechanism is not exposed to the afterburning environment when afterburning, regardless of whether it vectors?

You reminded me of the "idea guys" in many companies - I come up with the idea, you execute

 

[john2017]

The F119 and F135 don't have afterburners? The thrust vectoring mechanism is not exposed to the afterburning environment when afterburning, regardless of whether it vectors?

You reminded me of the "idea guys" in many companies - I come up with the idea, you execute

Of course they have burners… and yes, I am more of an idea guy.

 

[john2017]

Goodness, you really haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about. The business about lawsuits is just dishonest. Direct to ignore for you.

Good… I wouldn’t want your fragile little ego to get hurt by sticking your pretty little head out of mommie’s basement

 

[Blumlein 88]

The F119 and F135 don't have afterburners? The thrust vectoring mechanism is not exposed to the afterburning environment when afterburning, regardless of whether it vectors?

You reminded me of the "idea guys" in many companies - I come up with the idea, you execute

An engineer friend for a time worked for a company where the sales guys came up with all the ideas. Pitched them to customers to see if it was a good idea. Then the exec ordered the engineers to execute. Unfortunately most of those ideas were the type that violated the laws of physics (he designed compressors, blowers, refrigeration gear).

 

[DonR]

An engineer friend for a time worked for a company where the sales guys came up with all the ideas. Pitched them to customers to see if it was a good idea. Then the exec ordered the engineers to execute. Unfortunately most of those ideas were the type that violated the laws of physics (he designed compressors, blowers, refrigeration gear).

A lot of us engineers have been thrust into the same predicament. The fault actually lies with management for not running the ideas through a feasibility process before demanding execution.

 

[pkane]

A lot of us engineers have been thrust into the same predicament. The fault actually lies with management for not running the ideas through a feasibility process before demanding execution.

But...but... How could a feasibility study be ever conducted if science doesn't know everything??? Management and marketing know everything, that's a given.

 

[john2017]

But...but... How could a feasibility study be ever conducted if science doesn't know everything??? Management and marketing know everything, that's a given.

Science and understanding are amazing gifts, yet they cannot figure out how to build a new F1a rocket motor used during the Apollo program. Instead they need to use 33 Raptor engines at the same time, which is a great feat of engineering in itself, but also introduces 33 individual points of failure instead of 5.

 

[pkane]

Science and understanding are amazing gifts, yet they cannot figure out how to build a new F1a rocket motor used during the Apollo program. Instead they need to use 33 Raptor engines at the same time, which is a great feat of engineering in itself, but also introduces 33 individual points of failure instead of 5.

You keep confusing engineering with science. They are not the same.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

A lot of us engineers have been thrust into the same predicament. The fault actually lies with management for not running the ideas through a feasibility process before demanding execution.

Oh my yes. The stories I could tell. It happens in every industry. Sales guys with no science or technical knowledge sell an idea and we have to execute no matter how dumb.

 

[BDWoody]

No training in science as it were, but I do have a pretty good understanding of a couple areas.

Of course you do.

Good… I wouldn’t want your fragile little ego to get hurt by sticking your pretty little head out of mommie’s basement

Ok, that's plenty.

 

[DonR]

A lovely display of Dunning-Kruger

 

[Newman]

Ok, that's plenty.

Maybe we should change the title of this thread to Last Chance Saloon...

 

[sonitus mirus]

It is more like a padded cell than a saloon.

 

[MattHooper]

in my opinion, and it is just that, science can only go so far. There needs to be room for subjective evaluation as well. Science cannot explain everything. There has been equipment reviewed on this very site that was never listened to outside of what could be heard on the workbench. There have been speakers reviewed with just one speaker instead of the stereo pair, or not set up to the manufacturer‘s suggestions, simply because the measurements taken did not look good on a scope.

Audio gear is not designed or made to be listened to on a test bench. The acoustics of the room, everything from the floors to the ceiling, the shape of the room, and everything within that space all play a part in what we hear. This is why millions of dollars are spent designing concert halls for their acoustic environment. Just like the instruments our audio systems are trying to reproduce, so to our gear reads the room and responds accordingly. How can this be measured on a workbench?

You were making a very common mistake. You are implying that evaluating audio gear via measurements is somehow done at the expense of ignoring how the gear actually sounds.

How do you think audio measurements actually arose in the first place?

The whole point of measurements is in how they have over many years been correlated to how things sound!

Given what is known technically and scientifically about human hearing thresholds, with the right measurements you you don’t have to listen to two different cables to understand that they will sound identical.

Likewise, with amplifiers, given the appropriate caveats, and plenty of other gear.

Amir is using suits of measurements that have been established through plenty of scientific study to predict the Sonic behaviour of loudspeakers and listener preferences. The measurement criteria isn’t just plucked from the air because it looks pretty on a graph: the point is and how the measurements correlate to how a speaker will tend to sound.

Speakers that measure closest to this known criteria will tend to sound good to most people, and will also tend to behave more predictably in a wider range of rooms. It doesn’t tell you precisely how a speaker will sound in your room, but it will tell you what type of speakers are likely to be easier to sound smooth in your room.

So this division between measurements and listening is just a fallacy. The point of measurements is that they correspond to how gear sounds.

 

[voodooless]

You are implying that evaluating audio gear via measurements is somehow done at the expense of ignoring how the gear actually sounds.

“Actually” is the keyword here

 

[Axo1989]

You were making a very common mistake. You are implying that evaluating audio gear via measurements is somehow done at the expense of ignoring how the gear actually sounds.

How do you think audio measurements actually arose in the first place?

The whole point of measurements is in how they have over many years been correlated to how things sound!

Given what is known technically and scientifically about human hearing thresholds, with the right measurements you you don’t have to listen to two different cables to understand that they will sound identical.

Likewise, with amplifiers, given the appropriate caveats, and plenty of other gear.

Amir is using suits of measurements that have been established through plenty of scientific study to predict the Sonic behaviour of loudspeakers and listener preferences. The measurement criteria isn’t just plucked from the air because it looks pretty on a graph: the point is and how the measurements correlate to how a speaker will tend to sound.

Speakers that measure closest to this known criteria will tend to sound good to most people, and will also tend to behave more predictably in a wider range of rooms. It doesn’t tell you precisely how a speaker will sound in your room, but it will tell you what type of speakers are likely to be easier to sound smooth in your room.

So this division between measurements and listening is just a fallacy. The point of measurements is that they correspond to how gear sounds.

“Actually” is the keyword here

On that note I had an interesting experience at the optometrist recently.

Reading the eye chart I started having trouble as the letters got very small. She said, come on you can read that, try again. I laughed, and then read the letters correctly. She said, you were stressed, adrenalin makes your pupils expand, I can see it, when you laughed and relaxed you could focus, you actually see better than 20/20 there.

Thank goodness our ears don't have an iris (we have our own software algorithms and filters, of course).

 

[kemmler3D]

Rules should be put in place to confine discourse to the specific piece of gear, and not pass judgments on the character of the man that built it, or the company itself. To do so is BEGGING to be sued.

A very long comment comprised almost entirely of misunderstandings of science, ASR's membership, and the law, in that order.

1. Science can't explain everything about audio, music and hearing? Examples please! Seriously! I truly, honestly, eagerly await the day that someone comes along with an audible phenomenon that is unknown to science. That would be truly super interesting.

Unfortunately, all we get is people asserting that this is the case with zero references or examples. I'll keep waiting, though.

2. ASR's membership is mostly here because we value science. If you want to dispute the science, you can bring some better science or a better interpretation of existing science. Those are your options. On other forums you can believe in things that conflict with science if you want, although personally I don't see the point in it.

3. There is a lot of clear legal precedent around independent reviewing and expression of opinion. My understanding is that you can sue for whatever you want, but if the reviewer doesn't lie about the facts then they're not on the hook for damages...

"C&Ds are being drawn up..." oh no! are they going to tell their mommies, too? Because both options have the same legal force behind them, but tattling to your mom is much cheaper. Tell those serious guys who are seriously pondering asking their lawyers to write a C&D to seriously get a life.

Also, for some reason, this comment smells very strongly of Eric Alexander's socks with googly eyes glued to the toebox. Call me crazy.

NB: If a bad review put Carver or any other slinger of overpriced nonsense out of business... GOOD. There's too much competition in audio for the good but lesser-known brands to get their fair share of shelf space. Keep up or GTFO. I say this as someone who spent years busting my ass to compete with the likes of Beats, Bose and Sony. I have no patience for brands that feel entitled to sales even with crap sound.

 

[ahofer]

It's true, from a legal perspective, we are free to make invidious comments about designers, as long as we don't say intentionally or in bad faith say things that are factually false.

On the other hand, it is good practice, and in keeping with our scientific aspirations, to keep our comments to specific equipment, sales practices, design practices,etc., rather than Ad Hominem. When EA entered the forum, full of threats and totally unresponsive to inquiries about measurement,e tc. he earned some direct observations about his personality as a businessperson and forum member. Nonetheless, discussing the gear itself, as well as design praxis at any price point and recordings continue to be the core activity here. If our new high-handed critics had done a bit more reading before penning their meandering missives, they might have noticed that and held their pens.

 

[kemmler3D]

It's true, from a legal perspective, we are free to make invidious comments about designers, as long as we don't say intentionally or in bad faith say things that are factually false.

On the other hand, it is good practice, and in keeping with our scientific aspirations, to keep our comments to specific equipment, sales practices, design practices,etc., rather than Ad Hominem. When EA entered the forum, full of threats and totally unresponsive to inquiries about measurement,e tc. he earned some direct observations about his personality as a businessperson and forum member. Nonetheless, discussing the gear itself, as well as design praxis at any price point and recordings continue to be the core activity here. If our new high-handed critics had done a bit more reading before penning their meandering missives, they might have noticed that and held their pens.

+1 ... If you read through the various Tekton threads, I think most people at ASR were able to take an objective view of the speaker and its measurements, and judge it as at least "okay" despite the far-from-okay behavior on the part of its creator.

I can't tell you how many comments along the lines of "the speakers look fine but I'll never buy one now, because of the owner" I read. Call it defeat snatched from the jaws of a draw, I guess.

 

[sonitus mirus]

It's true, from a legal perspective, we are free to make invidious comments about designers, as long as we don't say intentionally or in bad faith say things that are factually false.

In many countries, freedom of speech rights protect such expressions. In my country, the United States of America, the First Amendment shields citizens, allowing us to clarify that someone is metaphorically, rather than anatomically, an asshole, irrespective of the state of our faith or theirs.